Hojon

Joined

• started 0 topics
• posted 109 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Hojon

• 
  59

  British And American Intercourse.

  by Englishman in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ok, america, this is it.

  you have got to start learning english english at some point or another, after all, us brits are having to learn american english to be able to understand all those films (movies) about how you saved our arses (butts) during the 1939 -1945 (1941 - 1945) war.. now we all know the obvious ones, such as you calling a car bonnet the hood, the boot is the trunk and a spanner being a wrench etc etc.

  plus the fact that you eat fries instead of chips and spread mayo instead of butter.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Hojon

  The majority of those quotes were came from the mouth of Al Gore. I'm looking for the link I need right now.

  Argh. This is what the internet has done, it's hard to "prove" much of where this stuff comes from and when it gets printed on several different web pages by several different people it makes it even more difficult. Most of them were originally said by Dan Quayle. They have since been attributed to both Al Gore and George Bush, but the fact is that they were originally said by Quayle.

  There are several books that were printed with his quotes back when he was still the VP. I have one, and it has many of those quotes in it. The dates have changed- they were mostly said back in the late 80s - but the rest is the same.
• 
  59

  British And American Intercourse.

  by Englishman in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ok, america, this is it.

  you have got to start learning english english at some point or another, after all, us brits are having to learn american english to be able to understand all those films (movies) about how you saved our arses (butts) during the 1939 -1945 (1941 - 1945) war.. now we all know the obvious ones, such as you calling a car bonnet the hood, the boot is the trunk and a spanner being a wrench etc etc.

  plus the fact that you eat fries instead of chips and spread mayo instead of butter.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Hojon

  Another one of the US's finest?

  God I hope not. :)
• 
  59

  British And American Intercourse.

  by Englishman in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ok, america, this is it.

  you have got to start learning english english at some point or another, after all, us brits are having to learn american english to be able to understand all those films (movies) about how you saved our arses (butts) during the 1939 -1945 (1941 - 1945) war.. now we all know the obvious ones, such as you calling a car bonnet the hood, the boot is the trunk and a spanner being a wrench etc etc.

  plus the fact that you eat fries instead of chips and spread mayo instead of butter.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Hojon

  Drloss- that was actually Dan Quayle that said that stuff. Or at least most of it, some of it has been embellished a bit.
• 
  11

  RE: Should Parents With Genetically...............

  by ladonna in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i am after a little input on something.. i am wondering what your thoughts are on parents not preventing pregnancies from occurring when they have already produced a child or children with a genetic defect???.

  is it fair or even moral to bring a child into the world when you have already proven that one or both parents genes are defective.

  i am speaking here of children that suffer and will not live normal life spans.. i personally could not do this.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Hojon

  Thanks Ladonna. My wife and I have talked about this several times and we both are in agreement with it.

  The reason I used the cataracts in my post is that she has that defect in her family, nearly all the women are born with cataracts. Her aunt had them, my wife and her sister had them. It's nearly 100% with the women, it doesn't affect the men at all.

  Treatments for that are available now that fix it completely. My wife has only about 30% vision in one eye, the other is perfect. Her aunt is blind in one eye, perfect in the other. You can see the progression in treatments as time goes on; today that is a trivial surgery. It was unavailable for her aunt, and was a major surgery for my wife.
• 
  25

  Big Bang Question

  by chappy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  what is the origen,(fact, theory or speculation) of the infinitly small point of energy that started it all?.

  later,.

  chappy

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Hojon

  Could you be more specific and cite some credible source references for this statement.

  I don't have a source that says "Causes are the realm of philosophy" so no, I don't have one. It's pretty much the definition of science. What or who caused the big bang, at least at this point in time, is beyond our scope. When I say Cause I'm referring to the Why, not the How. How is science, Why is philosophy.

  There are theories galore about what started off the Big Bang, unfortunately (at this point in time) we can't test them so they are the realm of philosophy right now. Perhaps later that will not be true.

  Interesting lab recreation. Again, would you be more specific and cite some credible source references for this statement.

  CERN and Fermilab* do this routinely, as do other accelerators I can't think of at the moment. Most of the bigger accelerators are capable of this sort of thing. The energies (temperature) of the universe at that age is something like 4 TeV, which is attainable in the more powerfull accelerators. I can double check that number, but I'm pretty sure that's close.

  Theoretically, all matter in the universe is believed to be condensed at one time into a single mass with no space, such that light cannot escape. The mass so great that it is reduced to a point of singularity. Then, for reasons unknown, that is, no one has yet devised a good theory (at least not to my satisfaction) as to why the super-dense mass exploded and expanded into the universe we have today

  One important point to keep in mind, it wasn't mass or light that expanded or had to escape this starting point, it was space itself. Space expaned very quickly at that point (faster than light) until it was diffuse enough for atoms to form. At those early energies (or, to look at it another way, masses), gravity is the dominant force. Unfortunately we don't have a quantum theory of gravity so it is hard to understand the exact mechanics of what happened.

  The "Cause" that Hojon must be referring to, from a philosophical perspective, is whether this would be by God or some other unknown higher power. - Amazing

  Yes, that's generally why this question gets asked in the first place. At least that's been my experience online. I assumed that was the intent of the question.

  *The God Particle is an excellent book that covers this topic in part. Neko quoted from it, it has quite a bit of information that I'm talkin about here. Leon Lederman was the director of Fermilab for about 10 years. My 10^-30 comes from that book, though you can find it other places too.
• 
  25

  Big Bang Question

  by chappy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  what is the origen,(fact, theory or speculation) of the infinitly small point of energy that started it all?.

  later,.

  chappy

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Hojon

  That can't be known, so it's a question not for science but philosophy. Causes are not the realm of science, just descriptions of things.

  We can recreate condition is a lab back to about 10^-30 seconds after the Big Bang, which is cool. :)
• 
  21

  The Real Whore of Babylon

  by Uncanny in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  today i noticed on television via 'entertainment tonight' how that supposed, self-proclaiming jehovah's witness 'sister' and top rating professional tennis player, venus williams, is back in the news again.. this time she was shown cuddling up to her italian bodyguard.

  she had quite a loving expression on her face, while he had a glint in his eyes which seemed to say he'd like to do more things with venus' well toned body than just protect it from intruders or perceived danger.. last year, i posted on h 20 how appalled i was on viewing sr venus running around courtside with an american flag after she won wimbledon in england.

  then there were those stationary tv close-ups while she stood reverently at attention as they played the u.s. national anthem.. my gripe in all this blatant display of double standards not so much concerns ms. williams' antics, but rather how they continue to be tolerated by her religion's governing body of jehovah's witnesses.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Hojon

  If a person is not a baptized member then he/she cannot be disciplined by the congregation for leading an inmoral lifestyle.

  Huh? I used to always here announcements in the Hall that So and so (and unbaptized person attending the meetings) was not good association and should be avoided. They are always doing that stuff when they find out an unbaptized member of the cong is committing some act the Society frowns on.

  The fact that the Williams sisters are going around calling themselves witnesses leads me to believe they are active, if not baptized. The very fact they associate themselves with the Witnesses and the WTS doesn't do anything to distance themselves from them means that they are accepting them by default.

  Think about this, if Marilyn Manson started going around calling himself a Witness how long do you think it would be before the WTS made some kind of public statement disassociating themselves from him? The Society likes the publicity from the Williams and therefore is willing to look the other way at times.
• 
  11

  RE: Should Parents With Genetically...............

  by ladonna in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i am after a little input on something.. i am wondering what your thoughts are on parents not preventing pregnancies from occurring when they have already produced a child or children with a genetic defect???.

  is it fair or even moral to bring a child into the world when you have already proven that one or both parents genes are defective.

  i am speaking here of children that suffer and will not live normal life spans.. i personally could not do this.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Hojon

  IMO, no they shouldn't have children. Obviously the degree of defect matters, if a person has a tendency to have cataracts that's not a big deal and is easily fixed. If it's something like (I am not sure what is a genetically caused disease and what isn't so I'm guessing here) Muscular Dystrophy or some other "severe" defect then I think they should not have children. I wouldn't, and plan to get screened before we start having them.

  For a person to have a child knowing that it's very likely to be born with a condition that will either kill it shortly after it's born, or cause massive physical/mental defects is selfish. The parent's desire to have a child in that case outweighs their concern for the well being of the child and that's not right.

  Of course, IMO having children is mostly a selfish desire anyways (not that that's wrong, I plan to have a couple myself). I think it's a biological drive that manifests itself that way.
• 
  2

  "Thank Jehovah's Witnesses for speech free...

  by Kent in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  wanna puke?

  take a look at this cute little page at cesnur:.

  usa today emphatically hails jehovah's witnesses' legal history for "rich contribution to freedom" (may 30, 2000) .

  1. 
  2. 
• 

  Hojon

  If the Watchtower was a newspaper, it would be USA Today. 4th grade reading level and occasionally they get stuff right.
• 
  17

  Go see Planet Of The Apes!

  by SlayerLayer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  it was awesome!

  i had to talk my wife into going to see it, and now she wants to see it again!.

  slayer

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Hojon

  I just saw it today. I loved the first one, this was OK. I enjoyed it and liked the way they tied it in to the original with the general's father.

  I didn't get the ending though. I mean, I got it but didn't understand how it happened. Anyone care to enlighten me? Pmail is fine, don't want to blow it for anyone.